|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 17:07:11 GMT -5
Jeff -
You are incorrectly using the word measurement. The word measurement means a number is produced concernig the thing being measured. Video by itself does not produce, measure or calculate any number. It captures images and that's all it does. Have you ever seen a phantom camera produce a number? They don't produce any numbers because they aren't a measuring device. You can put all sorts of information with the image to be captured with video, but that doesn't make video a measuring device. There's a reason that Jeffy purchased software to allow him to calculate/measure. He hasn't stated what he intends to do (measure or calculate) despite my question to him on this exact issue.
Why should the limited face angle that one sees be accurate if the face cannot be seen behind the ball?
How is Trackman accurate for off center strikes? High level math to deal with the impact forces. You'll have to ask Tuxen for a more detailed answer and I suspect he's not giving an answer (or anyone else for that matter) since such information is proprietary.
The phantom camera was not perpendicular to the ball's COG while the ball was on the ground to be more precise. It was a top down view of the face and not a face on view of the clubhead. What viewpoint would you want to see an object go up or down (i.e, AoA)? A top down view or face on view?
If you have been using the term zeroing out for years before Trackman I stand corrected. TM is merely a tool. Some people use it, some people don't. In the hands of better players it saves a ton of practice time.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 11, 2012 18:21:20 GMT -5
cwdlaw223
You wrote-: "You are incorrectly using the word measurement. The word measurement means a number is produced concernig the thing being measured. Video by itself does not produce, measure or calculate any number. It captures images and that's all it does. Have you ever seen a phantom camera produce a number? They don't produce any numbers because they aren't a measuring device. You can put all sorts of information with the image to be captured with video, but that doesn't make video a measuring device. There's a reason that Jeffy purchased software to allow him to calculate/measure."
That's obviously correct. I never implied that the Phantom camera produces "measurements". It produces sequential frame images at many thousands-of-frames-second, and measurements are made by examining the frame sequence using a scientifically valid technique.
You also wrote-: "Why should the limited face angle that one sees be accurate if the face cannot be seen behind the ball?"
What point are you trying to make? One measures the face angle as it would be if the face is not distorted by the ball - by making one's clubface angle measurements on both sides of the ball. Distortion of the clubface under the ball may affect the ball flight, but that is a "factor" that the Phantom camera and TM device cannot measure. That "factor" could turn out to be a confounding variable of uncertain significance.
You also wrote-: "How is Trackman accurate for off center strikes? High level math to deal with the impact forces. You'll have to ask Tuxen for a more detailed answer and I suspect he's not giving an answer (or anyone else for that matter) since such information is proprietary."
You believe that based on "faith". I have no "faith" in TMs ability to accurately measure clubface orientation in "real life" practice if the TM device doesn't precisely know what's the degree of off-center strike - because it cannot see the face. When you hit a ball off the toe, how does TM know exactly to what degree that magnitude of off-center strike will affect the ball flight?
You wrote-: "The phantom camera was not perpendicular to the ball's COG while the ball was on the ground to be more precise. It was a top down view of the face and not a face on view of the clubhead. What viewpoint would you want to see an object go up or down (i.e, AoA)? A top down view or face on view?"
The camera was mounted vertically/perpendicularly above the ball -via the mirror system. That obviously cannot measure AoA. That's why KM also did separate measurements with the camera mounted perpendicular to the ball in a horizontal plane.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 19:24:39 GMT -5
Jeff -
FA at first touch before any distortion is fine by me. Not against that reading, but it currently isn't offered by Tman or Fscope.
Check out post 44 where you stated the phantom was actually measuring face angle. You couldn't have been more clear in asserting the camera was making a measurement.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 11, 2012 20:57:42 GMT -5
cwdlaw223
Here is what I actually stated in post#44-: "That's factually inaccurate. The overhead-mounted Phantom camera sees the front of the clubface relative to the ball-target line (which is clearly marked), and therefore it is accurately measuring the clubface orientation angle at impact. The exact/precise clubface angle measurements are establishing afterwards, and I have no reason to believe that they should be inaccurate. Why should they be inaccurate?"
I stand by those statements. The Phantom camera is accurately measuring the face angle at impact by collecting the visual data required for more precise measurements, which are performed afterwards using the appropriate scientific techniques. Those scientific techniques do not alter the visual data collected by the Phantom camera - therefore the Phantom's collected visual data is deemed to be accurate from a measurement perspective.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 21:29:28 GMT -5
Jeff -
"That's factually inaccurate. The overhead-mounted Phantom camera sees the front of the clubface relative to the ball-target line (which is clearly marked), and therefore it is accurately measuring the clubface orientation angle at impact."
The pronoun it in the sentence above refers back to the camera (can't mean the clubface is) and then you specifically state it "accurately measuring the clubface orientation angle at impact." You can't get any clearer that you were asserting the camera itself was making a measurement. You stated just that. If your statement was in error so be it, but you did claim the camera was making a measurement. I take people at their word and don't try to infer some deeper meaning. You said nothing about collecting visual data until your last post.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 11, 2012 21:54:28 GMT -5
cwdlaw223,
I personally think that your nitpicking reflects an "attitude" problem. I simply presumed that you understood what KM/Jeffy were doing in their Phantom camera research project because Jeffy clearly described the process in his forum. Seeing that you have decided to nitipick - I have clarified what I really mean in my last post when I stated-: "The Phantom camera is accurately measuring the face angle at impact by collecting the visual data required for more precise measurements, which are performed afterwards using the appropriate scientific techniques. Those scientific techniques do not alter the visual data collected by the Phantom camera - therefore the Phantom's collected visual data is deemed to be accurate from a measurement perspective".
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 11, 2012 22:43:56 GMT -5
The words measurement and calculation have spawned many posts in the Trackman debates and in one sense, are terms of art. There can be a big difference between something being measured vs. calculated. I still believe you're using the word measuring incorrectly. A camera only captures images and it isn't measuring anything. That's why Jeffy needs time to go through the video with the software program he purchased. I don't deny the camera captures images well. But it doesn't measure anything and to say otherwise is illogical.
Why are you trying to taunt me or ridicule me with your post about an attitude problem? Are you allowed to violate your own rules of decorum?
Jeffy never answered my question I posted here about measurement/calculation. I have no idea what position he takes which is why I asked the question.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 11, 2012 23:21:45 GMT -5
cwdlaw223
You wrote-: " I still believe you're using the word measuring incorrectly. A camera only captures images and it isn't measuring anything."
You are free to harbor that opinion that my beliefs are illogical.
I think that the Phantom camera is making a "measurement" because it has been specifically setup to be perpendicular to the ball and the ball-target line - in other words, the camera setup is designed to measure the clubface angle and clubhead path relative to the ball-target line and create precise visual assessments (visual measurements). If you don't like my explanation, that's fine because in this forum we are free to accept/reject any other forum member's explanations.
You also wrote-: "Why are you trying to taunt me or ridicule me with your post about an attitude problem? Are you allowed to violate your own rules of decorum?"
Nitpicking is not a negative attribute if the nitpicking person is simply trying to clear up misunderstandings. Nitpicking is an attitude problem when one is nitpicking with the deliberate intention of trying to demonstrate that someone is a fool. Although I suspect the latter situation (based on the pattern of your posts in the Gotham Golf Glog forum), I am not taunting you or ridiculing you by expressing my suspicion. Be careful though - because if I increasingly think that are simply here to try and humiliate any forum member who disagrees with your opinions, then my inclination to ban you will definitely increase. I will simply not let you behave in the manner that you frequently manifested in the Gotham Golf Blog forum when you endlessly tried to humiliate Tapio.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 12, 2012 6:30:44 GMT -5
Follow your own rules Jeff. You claimed I had an "attitude" problem which was the type of personal attack you said will not be tolerated here. If you ban people that point out you aren't following your own rules that's your choice. Cameras don't measure anything unless you want create a new definition of the word measure. That isn't opinion, that is fact. If we can't use language correctly then communication will break down.
If the logic shows that someone was foolish there's nothing anyone can do about that if you are searching for truth.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 12, 2012 7:16:24 GMT -5
Follow your own rules Jeff. You claimed I had an "attitude" problem which was the type of personal attack you said will not be tolerated here. If you ban people that point out you aren't following your own rules that's your choice. Cameras don't measure anything unless you want create a new definition of the word measure. That isn't opinion, that is fact. If we can't use language correctly then communication will break down. If the logic shows that someone was foolish there's nothing anyone can do about that if you are searching for truth. Yep CW, and that's exactly same with Trackman. It doesn't measure anything. It's a radar.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 12, 2012 9:13:46 GMT -5
Tapio -
Trackman is more than just radar and radar by itself isn't a measuring device. Trackman performs measurements and calculcations from the information it gathers from radar. Just as someone who uses video and tries to make measurements/calculcations on the information contained in the video.
One of the challenges raised against Trackman's clubface calculcation is that it is a calculation instead of a measurement and therefore flawed. That's why it's so important to use the words measurement and calculation correctly in these types of debates.
|
|
|
Post by tapiosantala on Dec 12, 2012 9:20:45 GMT -5
Tapio - Trackman is more than just radar and radar by itself isn't a measuring device. Trackman performs measurements and calculcations from the information it gathers from radar. Just as someone who uses video and tries to make measurements/calculcations on the information contained in the video. One of the challenges raised against Trackman's clubface calculcation is that it is a calculation instead of a measurement and therefore flawed. That's why it's so important to use the words measurement and calculation correctly in these types of debates. Same with camera. It doesn't measure anything but gives information that is used for calculation. It doesn't matter if you use pixels or radar information for that. Now the relevant question is which one of those can see the face better. I think we all know the answer already.
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Dec 12, 2012 9:32:52 GMT -5
I completely agree with you that video doesn't measure or calculate anything.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 12, 2012 9:51:53 GMT -5
Tapio - Trackman is more than just radar and radar by itself isn't a measuring device. Trackman performs measurements and calculcations from the information it gathers from radar. Just as someone who uses video and tries to make measurements/calculcations on the information contained in the video. One of the challenges raised against Trackman's clubface calculcation is that it is a calculation instead of a measurement and therefore flawed. That's why it's so important to use the words measurement and calculation correctly in these types of debates. I could be wrong but all summer many of us have been saying the calculations have been off, wrong, not trustworthy, whatever have you, but you were a staunch defender that the calculations were enough to use to determine what you were doing wrong with ones clubface at impact as a teaching tool? This is my recollection from the threads at Richie's. It seems to me, all those threads the past year or two, saying how you really are just guessing if you dont have this device for face and path were completely without merit.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 12, 2012 10:04:16 GMT -5
Greg,
You wrote-: "It seems to me, all those threads the past year or two, saying how you really are just guessing if you don't have this device for face and path were completely without merit."
It definitely demonstrates the invalidity of his position. I strongly suspect that the research-a-thon's final conclusions will conclude that TM's calculated measurements are even more inaccurate than we ever imagined.
Jeff.
|
|